( 1 ) IN this writ petition,filed underarticle226ofthe Constitution,the challenge is to the order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner on 21st May, 1991 countermanding the election to the Meerut Parliamentary constituency and also the order dated 10th June, 1991 whereby the Chief Election Commissioner refused-to review the earlier order dated 21st May, 1991.

( 2 ) AFTER the dissolution of the 9th Lok Sabha, the President issued a Notification dated 19th April, 1991 under Section 14 of The Representation Of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act) calling for the general elections to constitute the 10th Lok Sabha. The said Notification was as follows:-

"s. O. Whereas it has been decided to hold a general election for the purpose of constituting a new House of the People, on the dissolution of the Ninth House of the People. "now therefore, in pursuance of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 14 of The Representation of the People Act, 19,51, the President is pleased to call upon all parlimentary constituencies (other than those within the State of Jammu and Kashmir for which a separate notification will be issued in due course) to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder. [noj3 (3)/91-Leg. II] By order (K. J. Mohanpuria) "chief Election Commissioner of India"

( 3 ) IT may here be stated that two other similar orders were passed by the Chief Election Commissioner countermanding the poll to the Parliamentary constituency of Patna and also to the Parliamentary constituency of Agota (U. P. ).

( 4 ) THE petitioner made a representation to the Chief Election Commissioner on 24th May, 1991 praying for review/rectification of the aforesaid order countermanding the election. After hearing the petitioner and the other contesting candidates of the Meerut Parliamentary constituency, as also of the five assembly segments of that constituency from where elections were being held simultaneously to the State Legislative Assembly, he passed an order dated 10th June, 1991 declining to revoke or modify the order dated 21st May, 1991. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed, inter alia, challenging the aforesaid order dated 21st May, 1991 and 10th June, 1991 and the further prayer which has been made is that a writ of mandamus be directed to be issued to the respondents to hold adjourned poll or re-poll in the affected polling stations of the Meerut Parliamentary constituency in accordance with law.

( 5 ) THE main contention in the writ petition, which was urged before us, is that the Chief Election Commissioner had no power, in law, to countermand the elections. In this connection the submission was that the provisions of Section 58-A of the 1951 Act had been misconstrued. It is also contended that, on facts, there was no justification for the impugned order dated 21st May, 1991 being passed countermanding the elections, as there was no report of the Returning Officer that the booth capturing had taken place in such a large number of polling stations that the entire election was likely to be affected. According to the petitioner the impugned orders had resulted in stultification and halting of the elections.

( 6 ) APART from justifying the impugned orders on merits, a preliminary objection which was raised by the respondents was that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of the specific bar to interference by the Courts in electoral matters as per Article 329 of the Constitution. The submission of the respondents is that the electoral process has not yet been completed and the present petition is premature and the only remedy which can beavailed by the petitioner is by way of anelection petition and in view of the provisions of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution the writ petition was not maintainable. It was also con- tended that the Election Commission could countermand the entire election.

(